ERDŐS-KO-RADO THEOREMS FOR SIMPLICIAL COMPLEXES arxiv: v3 [math.co] 29 Nov 2010

Transcription

1 ERDŐS-KO-RADO THEOREMS FOR SIMPLICIAL COMPLEXES arxiv: v3 [math.co] 29 Nov 2010 RUSS WOODROOFE Abstract. A recent framework for generalizing the Erdős-Ko- Rado Theorem, due to Holroyd, Spencer, and Talbot, defines the Erdős-Ko-Rado property for a graph in terms of the graph s independent sets. Since the family of all independent sets of a graph forms a simplicial complex, it is natural to further generalize the Erdős-Ko-Rado property to an arbitrary simplicial complex. An advantage of working in simplicial complexes is the availability of algebraic shifting, a powerful shifting (compression) technique, which we use to verify a conjecture of Holroyd and Talbot in the case of sequentially Cohen-Macaulay near-cones. 1. Introduction A family A of sets is intersecting if every pair of sets in A has nonemptyintersection, andisanr-family ifeverysetinahascardinalityr. A well-known theorem of Erdős, Ko, and Rado bounds the cardinality of an intersecting r-family: Theorem 1.1. (Erdős-Ko-Rado [11]) Let r n and A be an intersecting r-family of subsets of [n]. Then A ( n 1 2 r 1). Given a simplicial complex (defined in Section 2) and a face σ of, we define the link of σ in to be link σ = {τ : τ σ is a face of, τ σ = }. Anr-face of isafaceofcardinalityr. Wefurtherletf r ( )bedefined asthenumberofr-facesin, andthetuple(f 0 ( ),f 1 ( ),...,f d+1 ( )) (where d is the dimension of ) is called the f-vector of. Note 1.2. WefollowSwartz[28]inourdefinitionofr-faceandf r. Other sources define an r-face to be a face with dimension r (rather than cardinality r) which shifts the indices of the f-vector by 1. We restate Theorem 1.1 using this language: 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. 05E45, 05D05. 1

2 ERDŐS-KO-RADO THEOREMS FOR SIMPLICIAL COMPLEXES 2 Theorem 1.3. Let r n and A be an intersecting r-family of faces 2 of the simplex with n vertices. Then A f r 1 (link v 1 ). Let G be a graph with edge set E(G) and vertex set V(G). The independence complex of G, denoted I(G), is the simplicial complex consisting of all independent sets of G. For a vertex v V(G), the closed neighborhood N[v] consists of v and all its neighbors. We notice that link I(G) v = I(G\N[v]). Following Holroyd, Spencer, and Talbot [17, Section 1], we define: Definition 1.4. A simplicial complex is r-ekr if every intersecting r-family A of faces of satisfies A max v V ( ) f r 1 (link v). Equivalently, is r-ekr if the set of all r-faces containing some v has maximal cardinality among all intersecting families of r-faces. Holroyd and Talbot [18] further investigated the problem of when graphs are r-ekr, and made the following conjecture: Conjecture 1.5. (Holroyd-Talbot [18, Conjecture 7]) If G is a graph where the minimal facet cardinality of I(G) is k, then I(G) is r-ekr for r k 2. The natural extension was made by Borg [5]: Conjecture 1.6. (Borg[5, Conjecture 1.7]) If is a simplicial complex having minimal facet cardinality k, then is r-ekr for r k 2. Remark 1.7. A different version of an EKR property for simplicial complexes was studied by Chvátal [8], who conjectured that if A is an intersecting family of faces (of possibly differing dimensions) then ( ) A max f r (link v), v V ( ) r i.e., that the set of all faces containing some v has maximal cardinality among all intersecting families of faces. We notice that Conjecture 1.6 is an analogue of Chvátal s Conjecture for uniform intersecting families. We refer the reader to [6] for additional background on the r-ekr property in graphs, and to [5] for further relationships with more general intersection problems. This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we review the necessary background on shifted complexes, algebraic shifting, the Cohen- Macaulay property, and near-cones. We also characterize the graphs G such that Shift I(G) is the independence complex of some other graph, and the graphs such that I(G) is a near-cone. In Section 3 we present

3 ERDŐS-KO-RADO THEOREMS FOR SIMPLICIAL COMPLEXES 3 and prove our main theorem, Theorem 3.3. In Section 4 we give applications of Theorem 3.3 to Conjecture 1.5. In particular, we recover the main result of [19], and many of the results of [17]. We close in Section 5 with further questions regarding the strict r-ekr property. Acknowledgements The article at Gil Kalai s blog (at ) on the use of algebraic shifting in intersection theorems was very helpful, especially in proving Lemma 3.1. Art Duval and Isabella Novik also answered some of my questions about algebraic shifting. Glenn Hurlbert and Vikram Kamat explained the difficulties in extending their proof of Corollary 4.2 to all vertex decomposable graphs. 2. Shifting We will need some basic simplicial complex language: An (abstract) simplicial complex is a system of sets (called faces) on base set V( ) (called vertices) such that if σ is a face then every subset of σ is also a face. We assume that every vertex is contained in some face. A facet of is a face that is maximal under inclusion. It is well-known that any abstract simplicial complex has a geometric realization, a geometric simplicial complex with the same face incidences; so we can use terms from geometry such as dimension to describe a simplicial complex. If F is some family of sets, then the simplicial complex (F) generated by F has faces consisting of all subsets of all sets in F. For a simplicial complex, the r-skeleton (r) consists of all faces of having dimension at most r, while the pure r-skeleton is the subcomplex generated by all faces of having dimension exactly r. The join of disjoint simplicial complexes and Σ is the simplicial complex Σ with faces τ σ, where τ is a face of and σ a face of Σ. A simplicial complex with ordered vertex set {v 1,...,v n } is shifted if whenever σ is a face of containing vertex v i, then (σ \{v i }) {v j } is a face of for every j < i. An r-family F of subsets of {v 1,...,v n } is shifted if it generates a shifted complex. A general approach to proving theorems similar to Theorem 1.3 is to define a shifting operation or compression operation which replaces a non-shifted set system with a shifted system obeying some of the same combinatorial properties. Erdős, Ko, and Rado pioneered this technique in [11], and their operation is now called combinatorial shifting. Combinatorial shifting is discussed in the survey article [13], particularly as applied to intersection theorems.

4 ERDŐS-KO-RADO THEOREMS FOR SIMPLICIAL COMPLEXES Algebraic shifting. The specific shifting operation we will use is called exterior algebraic shifting (with respect to a field F), and we denote the (exterior) algebraic shift of by Shift, or Shift F if we want to emphasize the field. Algebraic shifting was first studied by Kalai, and unless otherwise stated the facts we present here were first proved by him. The precise definition of Shift will not be important forus, but can be found in Kalai s survey article [22]. Rather than working with the definition, we examine Shift using a series of lemmas collected in[22]. The following basic properties we will use without further mention: Lemma 2.1. [22] Let be a simplicial complex with n vertices. Then: (1) Shift is a shifted simplicial complex on an ordered vertex set {v 1,...,v n }. (2) If is shifted, then Shift =. (3) f i (Shift ) = f i ( ) for all i. Shifting respects subcomplexes, at least in a weak sense: Lemma 2.2. [22, Theorem 2.2] If Σ are simplicial complexes, then ShiftΣ Shift. Example 2.3. Let be the simplicial complex with facets {1,2} and {3,4}. Then it is easy to see that the unique shifted complex with the same f-vector has facets {1,2}, {2,3}, and {4}, hence that this complex is Shift. Then Shift{1,2} = Shift{3,4} = {1,2} Shift. Corollary 2.4. If isasimplicialcomplex, then Shift( (r) ) = (Shift ) (r). Proof. Lemma 2.2 gives that Shift( (r) ) (Shift ) (r), and by Lemma 2.1 part (3) the f-vectors are equal. Notice that if is a shifted complex, then it is immediate that (r) is shifted for every r. If A is some r-family of sets, then ShiftA is the pure r-skeleton of Shift (A). (Kalai s equivalent definition actually defines Shift as a union of the shift of its r-faces [22, Section 2.1].) Kalai proves: Lemma 2.5. [22, Corollary 6.3] If A is an intersecting r-family, then Shift A is an intersecting r-family Near-cones. A simplicial complex is a near-cone with respect to an apex vertex v if for every face σ, the set (σ \ {w}) {v} is also a face for each vertex w σ. Equivalently, the boundary of every facet of is contained in v link v; another equivalent condition is that consists of v link v union some set of facets not containing v

5 ERDŐS-KO-RADO THEOREMS FOR SIMPLICIAL COMPLEXES 5 (but whose boundary is contained in link v). If is a cone with apex vertex v, then obviously = v link v, thus every cone is a near-cone. Because the apex vertex is always the vertex with the largest link, near-cones are relatively easy to work with in the context of intersection theorems, as has been previously noticed in e.g. [27, 4]. In particular: Lemma 2.6. If is a near-conewith apex vertex v, then f r (link w) f r (link v) for any vertex w and all r. Proof. For every (r +1)-face σ containing w, either v σ or else (σ \ w) v is an r-face containing v but not w. Notice that being a near-cone with apex vertex v essentially says that is shifted with respect to v. In particular, any shifted complex is a near-cone with apex vertex v 1. Nevo examined the algebraic shift of a near-cone, showing: Lemma 2.7. (Nevo [25, Theorems 5.2 and 5.3]) If is a near-cone with apex v, let us consider Shift(link v) as having ordered vertex set {v 2,...,v n }. Then (1) link Shift v 1 = Shift(link v). (2) Shift = (v 1 Shift(link v)) B, where B is a set of facets not containing v 1. Corollary 2.8. If is a near-cone with apex v, then f r (link v) = f r (link Shift v 1 ) for all r Pure complexes, Cohen-Macaulay complexes, and depth. A simplicial complex is pure if all facets of have the same dimension. Graphs with a pure independence complex are sometimes called well-covered. LetF beeitheranyfield, ortheringofintegers. Asimplicialcomplex is Cohen-Macaulay over F if its homology satisfies H i (link σ;f) = 0 for all i < dim(link σ) and all faces σ of (including σ = ). It is well-known that every Cohen-Macaulay complex is pure, and that every skeleton of a Cohen-Macaulay complex is Cohen-Macaulay. A simplicial complex is sequentially Cohen-Macaulay over F if the pure r-skeleton of is Cohen-Macaulay (over F) for all r. Thus, a pure sequentially Cohen-Macaulay complex is Cohen-Macaulay. When we simply say that a simplicial complex is (sequentially) Cohen-Macaulay, with no mention of F, then we mean that is (sequentially) Cohen-Macaulay over all F. For example, every shellable or vertex decomposable complex is sequentially Cohen-Macaulay over any F [2, 3].

6 ERDŐS-KO-RADO THEOREMS FOR SIMPLICIAL COMPLEXES 6 The main relationships between the Cohen-Macaulay property and shifting are the following: Lemma 2.9. [3, Theorem 11.3] If is shifted, then is vertex decomposable, hence sequentially Cohen-Macaulay (over any F). Lemma ([22,Theorem4.1],seealso[1,Proposition8.4]) Shift F is pure if and only if is Cohen-Macaulay (over F). Duval [9] also examined the algebraic shift of a sequentially Cohen- Macaulay complex, and more generally of Cohen-Macaulay skeletons. A result of his that will be of particular interest to us is: Corollary (Duval [9, Corollary 4.5]) The minimum facet dimension of Shift F is d if and only if (d) is Cohen-Macaulay (over F). Corollary 2.11 suggests the definition of the depth of over F as depth F = max{d : (d) is Cohen-Macaulay over F}. Thus, depth F is the minimum facet dimension of Shift F. We note that depth F is one less than the ring-theoretic depth of the Stanley-Reisner ring F[ ] [26, Theorem 3.7]. Thus, just as in the ring-theoretic situation, is Cohen-Macaulay over F if and only if depth F = dim. If is sequentially Cohen-Macaulay over F then depth F is the minimum facet dimension of. By the definition of simplicial homology we have H d ( (d+1) ;F) = H d ( ;F), hence the easy equivalent characterization: depth F = max{d : Hi (link σ;f) = 0 for all σ and i < d σ }. In particular, we notice that depth F is at most the minimal facet dimension, since if σ is a facet then H 1 (link σ;f) = H 1 ( ;F) = F. The following result about the depth of the join of complexes will be especially useful in Section 4: Lemma Let F be a field, and 1 and 2 be simplicial complexes. Then depth F ( 1 2 ) = depth F 1 +depth F Proof. Faces of 1 2 have the form σ = σ 1 σ 2 where σ i is a face of i, hence link 1 2 σ = link 1 σ 1 link 2 σ 2. The result then follows from the standard algebraic topology fact [20, Corollary 4.23] that H n+1 ( 1 2 ;F) = n+1 H i= 1 i ( 1 ;F) H n i ( 2 ;F). The reader is referred to [20] for additional background on depth F and the (sequentially) Cohen-Macaulay property. We will henceforth take the field F to be understood, and drop it from our notation.

7 ERDŐS-KO-RADO THEOREMS FOR SIMPLICIAL COMPLEXES Shifting independence complexes. A graph G is chordal if every induced subgraph of G which is a cyclic graph has length 3. A graph is co-chordal if its complement graph is chordal. Since the original question of Holroyd, Spencer and Talbot was restricted to the independence complexes of graphs, one might ask when ShiftI(G)isisomorphictoI(G )forsomegraphg. Theanswer iseasy, given the necessary machinery. The Alexander dual of, denoted, is the complex with facets {σ : V \σ is a minimal non-face of }. See e.g. [21, Section 6] for more information and background on Alexander duality. Theorem Let G be a graph. Then ShiftI(G) is the independence complex I(G ) of some other graph G if and only if G is co-chordal. Proof. We need the following three facts about Alexander duality: 1) It is clear from the definition that is the independence complex of a graph if and only if is pure (n 2)-dimensional, where n is the number of vertices of. 2) Alexander duality and shifting commute, i.e. Shift = (Shift( )) [22, Section 3.5.6]. 3) If G is a graph, then I(G) is Cohen-Macaulay if and only if G is co-chordal [10, Proposition 8]. The result is then immediate from Lemma Remark The family of independence complexes of graphs has been extensively studied in the literature under the name of flag complexes. The shifted flag complexes were classified by Klivans, as follows: GivenagraphG, letd(g)beg {v}foranewvertexv (D for disjoint union ). Let S(G) be the graph on vertex set V(G) {v} for a new vertex v and with edge set E(G) {wv : w V(G)} (S for star ). In the independence complex, we have I(D(G)) as the cone over I(G), and I(S(G)) as I(G) {v}, thus if G is sequentially Cohen-Macaulay then both D(G) and S(G) are. Agraphis threshold [24] if it isobtainedfromasinglevertex by some sequence of D and S operations. Every threshold graph is both chordal and co-chordal. Since a D operation adds a cone vertex, which can be takenastheinitialvertexinashiftedcomplex; andans operationadds a disjoint vertex, which can be taken as the final vertex in a shifted complex, we have proved inductively that the independence complex of any threshold graph is shifted. Klivans [23] showed the converse result that all graphs with shifted independence complex are threshold. We prove the following generalization of [23, Theorem 1]: Proposition If G is a graph such that I(G) is a near-cone, then G is obtained from some graph G 0 by a sequence of D and S operations, including at least one D operation.

8 ERDŐS-KO-RADO THEOREMS FOR SIMPLICIAL COMPLEXES 8 Proof. Let v be the apex vertex of I(G), and suppose that wv E(G). Then wx is also an edge for every x V(G), since if wx were a face of I(G) then wv would also be independent, a contradiction. We see that G = S k D(G\N[v]), where k is the number of neighbors of v. Remark Since the independence complex of S(G) has an isolated vertex, its minimum facet dimension is 0. Hence Proposition 2.15 tells us that for a graph G we have that I(G) is a near-cone with non-trivial minimum facet dimension if and only if G has an isolated vertex. 3. Main theorem The following lemma follows from Borg s more general result [5, Theorem 2.7]. We use algebraic shifting to give a short new proof of the specific result. Lemma 3.1. (Borg [5, Theorem 2.7]) If is a shifted complex having minimal facet cardinality k, then is r-ekr for r k 2. Proof. Let have ordered vertex set {v 1,...,v n }, and let A be an intersecting r-family of faces of. We proceed by induction: our base cases arewhen isasimplex (Theorem 1.3), andthetrivial case where r = 1. If isnotasimplex andr > 1, thenby Lemmas2.5and2.2, we have that ShiftA is a shifted intersecting r-family of faces of = Shift with ShiftA = A. We decompose ShiftA into the subfamilies C consisting of all σ ShiftA with v n σ, and D = (ShiftA)\C, so that A = ShiftA = C + D. We first consider C. Let C 0 = {σ \{v n } : σ C}, so that C = C 0. Suppose that C 0 is not intersecting. Then there are σ,τ C such that σ τ = {v n }, and σ τ < r + r k < n. It follows that there is a v l / σ τ. But then τ = (τ \ {v n }) {v l } is in ShiftA by the definition of shiftedness, and σ τ =, which contradicts that ShiftA is intersecting. We conclude that C 0 is an intersecting (r 1)- family of faces of link v n. Since link v n is a shifted complex with minimum facet cardinality at least k 1, we get that C = C 0 f r 2 (link {v 1,v n }) by induction and Lemma 2.6. We now consider D. It is obvious that D is an intersecting r-family contained in the shifted complex \v n. Since is not a simplex, it follows easily from the definition of shiftedness that the minimum facet cardinality of \ v n is at least k. By induction and Lemma 2.6 we have D f r 1 (link \vn v 1 ).

9 ERDŐS-KO-RADO THEOREMS FOR SIMPLICIAL COMPLEXES 9 Putting our two parts together, we have A = C + D f r 2 (link {v 1,v n })+f r 1 (link \vn v 1 ) = f r 1 (link v 1 ). Remark 3.2. Our requirement for Lemma 3.1 on the minimum facet cardinality seems much stronger than necessary. Our essential need is for a parameter k which we can control in both \ v n and link v n, and such that r k forces r < n. Use of another such parameter 2 2 might give a stronger result version of Lemma 3.1. Any strengthening of Lemma 3.1 would likely also strengthen Theorem 3.3. Holroyd and Talbot [18, Section 3] construct several examples of independence complexes that are not r-ekr for various r, which may give some intuition about what parameters are tractable. (They in particular construct an example with maximum facet cardinality l such that is not l 2 -EKR.) By applying algebraic shifting to an arbitrary complex, we prove: Theorem 3.3. If is a near-cone and F is an arbitrary field, then is r-ekr for r depth F Proof. Let A be an intersecting r-family of faces of. By Lemma 2.6, we need to show that A f r 1 (link v) for the apex vertex v. Apply algebraic shifting. Shift F A is an intersecting r-family of faces ofshift with ShiftA = A by Lemmas2.5and2.2. ByLemma2.11 andthe following discussion, the minimum facet cardinality of Shift F is depth F + 1, hence A f r 1 (link Shift v 1 ) = f r 1 (link v) by Lemma 3.1 and Corollary 2.8. To the best of my knowledge, Theorem 3.3 is the first new intersection theorem to be proved by algebraic shifting. Corollary 3.4. If is a sequentially Cohen-Macaulay near-cone with minimum facet cardinality k, then is r-ekr for r k 2. Remark 3.5. Borg s aforementioned result [5, Theorem 2.7] generalizes Lemma 3.1 to include non-uniform families (i.e., sets of different sizes), and to t-intersecting families (i.e., to families where A B t). By Kalai [22, Corollary 6.3 and following], algebraic shifting preserves the t-intersecting property for any r-family, hence a reduction to [5, Theorem 2.7] similar to that in Theorem 3.3 will show that if is a t-fold near-cone (i.e., shifted with respect to its first t elements) with depth equal to its minimum facet dimension, then [5, Conjecture 2.7] holds for uniform r-families of faces in. In particular, [5, Conjecture 2.7] holds for sequentially Cohen-Macaulay t-fold near-cones.

10 ERDŐS-KO-RADO THEOREMS FOR SIMPLICIAL COMPLEXES Applications It is immediate from the definitions that if G = G 1 G 2, then I(G) decomposes as the join I(G 1 ) I(G 2 ). In particular, if G has an isolated vertex v then I(G) is a cone over v, as discussed in detail in Section 2.2. We will call a graph G sequentially Cohen-Macaulay if its independence complex I(G) is sequentially Cohen-Macaulay. An immediate consequence of Corollary 3.4 is: Theorem 4.1. If G is a sequentially Cohen-Macaulay graph with an isolated vertex, then G satisfies Conjecture 1.5. The family of sequentially Cohen-Macaulay graphs includes: (1) Chordal graphs. [12] (2) Graphs with no induced cycle of length other than 3 or 5. [31] (3) Bipartite graphs containing a vertex v of degree 1 such that G \ N[v] and G \ N[w] (where w is the unique neighbor of v) recursively satisfy the same condition. [30, Corollary 3.11] (4) Incomparability graphs of shellable posets. [2] (5) The minimal set of non-faces of the isocahedron, or any other polytope where the set of minimal non-faces forms a graph. [7] (6) Disjoint unions of sequentially Cohen-Macaulay graphs, since I(G 1 G 2 ) = I(G 1 ) I(G 2 ). In particular, we recover the following theorem of Hurlbert and Kamat: Corollary 4.2. (Hurlbert-Kamat[19, Theorem 1.22]) If G is a chordal graph with an isolated vertex, then G satisfies Conjecture 1.5. Obviously we also have that if G is e.g. a threshold graph, then G satisfies Conjecture 1.5. But Remark 2.16 tells us that this result is not an interesting improvement on Corollary 4.2, since in this case the minimum facet cardinality of I(G) is 1 unless G has an isolated vertex. We apply Lemma 2.12 for a result in a slightly different direction: Proposition 4.3. If G = G 1... G n is the disjoint union of n 2r nonempty graphs, including at least one isolated vertex, then I(G) is r-ekr. Proof. The 0-skeleton of any non-empty complex is Cohen-Macaulay, hence depthi(g i ) 0, and by repeated application of Lemma 2.12 we get depthi(g) = depthi(g 1 ) I(G n ) n 1. The result then follows by Theorem 3.3. Proposition 4.3 significantly improves [17, Theorem 8], which proves the result in the special case where each G i is a complete graph, path, or cycle. By considering graphs of depth 1, we can do slightly better.

11 ERDŐS-KO-RADO THEOREMS FOR SIMPLICIAL COMPLEXES 11 Lemma 4.4. The independence complex of a graph G has depth 1 if and only if G > 1 and the complement graph Ḡ is connected. Proof. The complement graph Ḡ forms the 1-skeleton of I(G) under the hypothesis, and a 1-dimensional complex is Cohen-Macaulay if and only if it is connected. Example 4.5. Let C n be the cyclic graph on n vertices. If n 5, then C n satisfies the conditions of Lemma 4.4, hence depthi(c n ) 1. But the cyclic graph C 4 on 4 vertices has disconnected complement graph, hence depthi(c 4 ) = 0. Proposition 4.6. Let G = G 1... G n be the disjoint union of n graphs, including at least one isolated vertex. Suppose that m of the G i satisfy the conditions of Lemma 4.4. Then I(G) is r-ekr for r n+m 2. The proof is exactly as in Proposition Further questions As we have discussed, for to be r-ekr means that every maximal intersecting r-family of faces A has A max v V ( ) f r 1 (link v). We say that is strictly r-ekr if every maximum cardinality intersecting r-family of faces A consists of the r-faces of v (link v) (r 1) for some v. That is to say, every maximum intersecting r-family A satisfies A. Hilton and Milner [15] improved Theorem 1.3 to: A A Theorem 5.1. (Hilton-Milner [15]) If is the simplex with n vertices, then is strictly r-ekr for 2 r < n 2. Holroyd and Talbot, and later Borg, actually conjectured slightly more than we stated in Conjectures 1.5 and 1.6: Conjecture 5.2. (Holroyd-Talbot [18, Conjecture 7]; Borg [5, Conjecture 1.7]) If is a simplicial complex having minimal facet cardinality k, then is r-ekr for r k 2, and strictly r-ekr for r < k 2. Can an algebraic shifting (or some other) argument be adapted to prove Conjecture 5.2, optionally restricted to the case of a sequentially Cohen-Macaulay complex? Of course, even the more restricted Conjecture 1.6 remains open for general complexes. Theorem 3.3 suggests that a counterexample to Conjecture1.6, ifoneexists, shouldbeacomplexwhichbadlyfailstobe Cohen-Macaulay. We discuss briefly some examples of such complexes:

12 ERDŐS-KO-RADO THEOREMS FOR SIMPLICIAL COMPLEXES 12 Example 5.3. The facets of the boundary 0 of a simplex with n+1 vertices is intersecting, hence not n-ekr. One can increase the dimension by coning k points over each facet to obtain a pure complex with (k + 1) (n + 1) points. Since H n ( ) 0, the complex is not Cohen-Macaulay, and the hope for a counterexample would be: for some k > n and n r k+n, that the family A consisting of all 2 r-faces that contain a facet of 0 would be larger than f r 1 (link v). But we count: if v 0, then f r 1 (link v) = n (n+k r 1), while A = (n + 1) ( k r n). A straightforward computation (cancel, then match terms) yields that f r 1 (link v)/ A > 1. Hence A < f r 1 (link v), and thus A and are not a counterexample to Conjecture 1.6. Example 5.4. Cyclic graphs C n are not sequentially Cohen-Macaulay for n 3,5 [12, Proposition 4.1]. For example, I(C 4 ) consists of two disjoint 2-faces, while I(C 7 ) is a triangulation of the Möbius strip. Nonetheless, Talbot [29] showed that the independence complex of every cyclic graph is r-ekr for all r. More recently, the independence complex of the disjoint union of two cycles [14], and of the disjoint union of an arbitrary number of cycles and a path [16] were shown to be r-ekr for all r. Conjecture 1.5 also holds [6] for the disjoint union of an isolated vertex and a somewhat wider class of non-sequentially Cohen-Macaulay graphs, including cycles and complete multipartite graphs. References [1] Annetta Aramova and Jürgen Herzog, Almost regular sequences and Betti numbers, Amer. J. Math. 122 (2000), no. 4, [2] Anders Björner and Michelle L. Wachs, Shellable nonpure complexes and posets. I, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 348 (1996), no. 4, [3], Shellable nonpure complexes and posets. II, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 349 (1997), no. 10, [4] Peter Borg, Intersecting systems of signed sets, Electron. J. Combin. 14(2007), no. 1, Research Paper 41, 11 pp. (electronic). [5], Extremal t-intersecting sub-families of hereditary families, J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) 79 (2009), no. 1, [6] Peter Borg and Fred Holroyd, The Erdős-Ko-Rado properties of various graphs containing singletons, Discrete Math. 309 (2009), no. 9, [7] H. Bruggesser and P. Mani, Shellable decompositions of cells and spheres, Math. Scand. 29 (1971), (1972). [8] Vašek Chvátal, Intersecting families of edges in hypergraphs having the hereditary property, Hypergraph Seminar (Proc. First Working Sem., Ohio State Univ., Columbus, Ohio, 1972; dedicated to Arnold Ross), Springer, Berlin, 1974, pp Lecture Notes in Math., Vol. 411.

13 ERDŐS-KO-RADO THEOREMS FOR SIMPLICIAL COMPLEXES 13 [9] Art M. Duval, Algebraic shifting and sequentially Cohen-Macaulay simplicial complexes, Electron. J. Combin. 3 (1996), no. 1, Research Paper 21, approx. 14 pp. (electronic). [10] John A. Eagon and Victor Reiner, Resolutions of Stanley-Reisner rings and Alexander duality, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 130 (1998), no. 3, [11] P. Erdős, Chao Ko, and R. Rado, Intersection theorems for systems of finite sets, Quart. J. Math. Oxford Ser. (2) 12 (1961), [12] Christopher A. Francisco and Adam Van Tuyl, Sequentially Cohen-Macaulay edge ideals, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 135 (2007), no. 8, (electronic), arxiv:math/ [13] Peter Frankl, The shifting technique in extremal set theory, Surveys in combinatorics 1987 (New Cross, 1987), London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., vol. 123, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1987, pp [14] A. J. W. Hilton, F. C. Holroyd, and C. L. Spencer, King Arthur and his knights with two round tables, to appear in Q. J. Math. [15] A. J. W. Hilton and E. C. Milner, Some intersection theorems for systems of finite sets, Quart. J. Math. Oxford Ser. (2) 18 (1967), [16] A. J. W. Hilton and C. L. Spencer, A graph-theoretical generalization of Berge s analogue of the Erdős-Ko-Rado theorem, Graph theory in Paris, Trends Math., Birkhäuser, Basel, 2007, pp [17] Fred Holroyd, Claire Spencer, and John Talbot, Compression and Erdős-Ko- Rado graphs, Discrete Math. 293 (2005), no. 1-3, [18] Fred Holroyd and John Talbot, Graphs with the Erdős-Ko-Rado property, Discrete Math. 293 (2005), no. 1-3, , arxiv:math/ [19] Glenn Hurlbert and Vikram Kamat, Erdős-Ko-Rado theorems for chordal and bipartite graphs, to appear in J. Combin. Theory Ser. A, arxiv: [20] Jakob Jonsson, Simplicial complexes of graphs, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1928, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, [21] Gil Kalai, Enumeration of Q-acyclic simplicial complexes, Israel J. Math. 45 (1983), no. 4, [22], Algebraic shifting, Computational commutative algebra and combinatorics (Osaka, 1999), Adv. Stud. Pure Math., vol. 33, Math. Soc. Japan, Tokyo, 2002, pp [23] Caroline J. Klivans, Threshold graphs, shifted complexes, and graphical complexes, Discrete Math. 307 (2007), no. 21, , arxiv:math/ [24] N. V. R. Mahadev and U. N. Peled, Threshold graphs and related topics, Annals of Discrete Mathematics, vol. 56, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, [25] Eran Nevo, Algebraic shifting and basic constructions on simplicial complexes, J. Algebraic Combin. 22 (2005), no. 4, , arxiv:math/ [26] Dean E. Smith, On the Cohen-Macaulay property in commutative algebra and simplicial topology, Pacific J. Math. 141 (1990), no. 1, [27] Hunter Snevily, A new result on Chvátal s conjecture, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 61 (1992), no. 1, [28] Ed Swartz, g-elements, finite buildings and higher Cohen-Macaulay connectivity, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 113 (2006), no. 7, , arxiv:math/

14 ERDŐS-KO-RADO THEOREMS FOR SIMPLICIAL COMPLEXES 14 [29] John Talbot, Intersecting families of separated sets, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 68 (2003), no. 1, [30] Adam Van Tuyl and Rafael H. Villarreal, Shellable graphs and sequentially Cohen-Macaulay bipartite graphs, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 115 (2008), no. 5, , arxiv:math/ [31] Russ Woodroofe, Vertex decomposable graphs and obstructions to shellability, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 137 (2009), no. 10, , arxiv: address: russw@math.wustl.edu Department of Mathematics, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, 63130